CASE: SRI M.V. RAMACHANDRASA SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIRS V. M/S. MAHENDRA WATCH COMPANY REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS & ORS.
PETITION NUMBER: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4353 OF 2026
CITATION: 2026 INSC 348
DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 10.04.2026
HON’BLE JUDGE/ CORUM: HON’BLE JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH AND HON’BLE JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
INTRODUCTION
Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan on April 10, 2026, decided an appeal arising from a long-standing tenancy dispute concerning commercial premises, where the landlord sought eviction on grounds of unauthorized sub-letting. The litigation journey commenced when the trial court ordered eviction, finding that the original tenant had parted with possession in favor of third parties under the guise of a partnership reconstitution. However, this finding was subsequently overturned by the High Court of Karnataka in its revisional jurisdiction. This case critically examined the statutory boundaries of revisional powers under the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, and the evidentiary standards required to distinguish a genuine partnership from a sham arrangement intended to mask unlawful assignment.
FACTUAL MATRIX & PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The appellants are the legal representatives of the late appellant, who originally initiated the rent control proceedings before the trial Court. The deceased appellant was a long-term lessee of immovable properties situated at Uttaradhi Mutt Lane, Chickpet, Bengaluru. The said lease was created by virtue of a registered lease deed for a period of 55 years. Under the terms of the lease, the deceased appellant was duly authorised to sub-lease the whole or any portion of the property. The Respondent No. 1, a partnership firm, became a tenant under the deceased appellant through its partner, Respondent No. 4, by virtue of a lease deed.
Subsequently, the landlord came to be aware that Respondent Nos. 1 and 4 were no longer in possession of the premises and that the business therein was being carried on by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who were not parties to the said lease agreement. Upon issuance of notice in this regard, the landlord instituted suit seeking eviction on the ground that Respondent No. 1 had unlawfully sublet the premises and parted with possession in favour of third parties without the consent of the landlord.
The trial Court, upon consideration of the pleadings and the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, concluded that the persons in actual occupation of the premises were strangers to the original tenancy and that the tenant had unlawfully parted with possession in their favour. Pointing out that the lease deed expressly prohibited sub-letting or parting with possession without the consent of the landlord, the trial Court held that the respondents had rendered themselves liable for eviction, the petition was allowed, and the respondents were directed to vacate the premises and hand over vacant possession to the landlord.
Aggrieved thereby, the respondents filed a revision petition before the High Court, which allowed the revision petition and set aside the eviction order passed by the trial court. Subsequently, the appellants approached this Court by way of the present appeal.
ISSUES FRAMED
- Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the findings of fact recorded by the Trial Court while exercising its revisional jurisdiction under Section 46 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999?
- Whether the burden of proving unlawful sub-letting lies upon the landlord, and if so, whether such burden has been duly discharged in the present case?
- Whether the alleged retirement of the original tenant – partner and continuation of business by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 constitutes a mere reconstitution of partnership or amounts to unlawful sub-letting /assignment under Sections 27(2)(b)(ii) and 27(2)(p) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999?
SUBMISSIONS BY THE PARTIES
The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the High Court transgressed the well-settled limits of its revisional jurisdiction by substituting its own findings for those of the trial Court, which had correctly found that Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 failed to establish their status as partners. It was argued that the documentary evidence relied upon was unreliable, as no original partnership deed was produced to substantiate the claim of reconstitution, rendering the alleged induction of third parties a violation of Clause 19 of the registered lease deed. Consequently, the appellants contended that the grounds for eviction under Sections 27(2)(b)(ii) and 27(2)(p) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, were clearly established, as the respondents remain in unlawful occupation without any legal right or privity of contract.
Per Contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the appeal should be dismissed in limine for suppression of material facts and maintained that the firm has been a lawful tenant since 1978 with enduring rights of heritability and transferability. It was argued that the allegation of sub-letting is entirely baseless as the business has been continuously carried on by partners, and a mere change in the constitution of the partnership does not amount to an unlawful assignment. Finally, the respondents asserted that the eviction petition was based on an illusory cause of action and mischaracterised bona fide partners as sub-tenants, whereas the firm remains entitled to peaceful possession for the entire duration of the lease.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
The Hon’ble Court noted that the scope of revisional jurisdiction is well-settled and narrowly circumscribed. The provision of Section 46 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, empowers the High Court to examine the legality, correctness or propriety of an order; however, it does not confer appellate powers permitting reappreciation of evidence or substitution of factual findings. The High Court cannot reassess or re-analyse evidence to arrive at a different conclusion merely because another view is possible. Interference with findings of fact is permissible only when such findings are perverse, based on no evidence, suffer from misreading of evidence, or result in a miscarriage of justice. In the present matter it is evident that the Trial Court upon a detailed appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, recorded specific findings of fact, they were held to be pure findings and no perversity, illegality, or jurisdictional error has been demonstrated.. However, the High Court undertook a fresh analysis of the evidence, and arrived at independent factual conclusions. Such an exercise clearly amounts to reappreciation of evidence, which is impermissible in revisional jurisdiction.
Secondly, it is a settled principle of law that the burden of proof lies upon the party asserting a fact. In eviction proceedings founded on the ground of sub-letting, the initial onus rests upon the landlord to establish that the tenant has parted with possession of the tenanted premises in favour of a third party without authority. And in the present matter it was held that the burden of proving unlawful sub- letting initially lay upon the landlord, which has been duly discharged by establishing exclusive possession of third parties and absence of the original tenant. The burden thereafter shifted to the respondents, who have failed to rebut the presumption by adducing cogent evidence. Consequently, unlawful sub-letting stands proved.
Upon relying on various well settled precedents it was observed that the determinative test is whether the original tenant continues to retain legal possession and control over the premises. In the present matter the Respondent No.1 retired from the business around the year 2000. Significantly, no legally admissible evidence has been produced to establish either the factum of such retirement in accordance with law or that he continued to retain legal possession or control thereafter. And the respondents have failed to produce the original partnership deed, any duly proved retirement deed, or any document evidencing continuity of the original tenant firm. Thus, their induction into possession is not traceable to the original tenancy.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court ultimately set aside the High Court’s judgment, reaffirming that revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised as a second court of first appeal to reappreciate factual evidence. The Court held that the landlord had successfully discharged the initial burden of proving that strangers were in exclusive possession of the premises, shifting the onus to the occupants to prove a lawful nexus. By failing to produce the original partnership deed or evidence of the original tenant’s continued control, the respondents could not rebut the presumption of sub-letting. This ruling underscored that any reconstitution of a tenant firm must be bona fide and not a mere cloak to bypass restrictive lease covenants.
